The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin ... vs Ramesh Chandra Meena
2021 Latest Caselaw 10243 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 311/2021

1. The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB), Through Its Chairman, Head Office Tulsi Tower, 9th B-Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. The Chairman Cum Disciplinary Authority, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB), Head Office At Tulsi Tower 9th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur

----Appellants Versus

1. Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Sh. Ram Pal Meena, Aged About 51 Years, R/o House No. 1130 Shankar Colony, 4-C Scheme New Lohamandi Road (VKI, Road), Jaipur. Presently Working As Officer Scale - II Regional Business Office (RBO), Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Barmer.

2. Sh. K. C. Gupta, Enquiry Authority Working As Officer Scale - IV, RMGB, Staff Training Center, Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

07/07/2021

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby

the writ petition of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) has

been allowed by giving a direction to the appellant Bank to allow

the respondent writ petitioner to be represented by a retired

employee.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2 of 3) [SAW-311/2021]

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that

the services of the retired employee of the Bank is prohibited by

the Circular dated 31.01.2014 and the Regulation 8.2 of Chapter-

VIII of the Handbook on Vigilance Administration & Disciplinary

Action of the Memorandum for the Board of the Rajasthan

Marudhara Gramin Bank. He submits that since the Regulation

does not permit the services of a retired employee to be engaged

by the delinquent officer, therefore, the impugned judgment is

liable to be set aside.

We have considered the submission made at the Bar and

gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Circular

dated 31.01.2014 and the guidelines of the Rajasthan Marudhara

Gramin Bank governing the holding of the disciplinary enquiries.

The fundamental question involved in the present case is

that the services of an ex-employee can be utilized by the

delinquent official for defending his case in the disciplinary

proceedings or not.

Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are held by the

officials of the Bank and the Bank is within their right to utilize the

prosecuting agency from the bank or otherwise. The principles of

natural justice will be met if the delinquent official is permitted to

utilize the services of an ex-employee for defending his case, more

particularly when the regulation governing or holding the field

does not debar the utilization of services of an ex-employee by the

delinquent official. Not only this, even the Regulations permit the

services of a lawyer to be engaged, but the same is subject to the

permission and approval to be granted by the disciplinary

authority.

(3 of 3) [SAW-311/2021]

We are of the considered view that since the Circular of 2014

and Regulation 8.2 do not prohibit the utilization of the services of

an ex-employee of the Bank, the view taken by the learned Single

Judge is not liable to be disturbed. Even otherwise, utilization of

services of the retired employee by the respondent writ petitioner

do not, in any manner, cause prejudice to the Bank.

Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention

to the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at

Indore in the case of Mangilal Piplya Vs. Chairman, Narmada

Jhabua Gramin Bank and Ors., W.P. No. 12182/2018, vide

order dated 09.07.2018, wherein the services of the retired

employee has also been allowed to be permitted by the delinquent

officer in the disciplinary proceedings.

In these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single

Judge is absolutely correct and does not call for any interference.

The appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, the same stands

dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ 58-jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)